St. Benjamin Memorial Clinic Supplies Limited v Attorney General & 6 others; Chege & 6 others (Plaintiff); Commissioner of Lands & 4 others (Defendant); Abdul Waheed Sheikh a nd Abdul Hameed Sheikh as Trustees of the Sheikh Fazal Ilachi Noordin Charitable Trust (Interested Party) (Environment and Land Petition 824 of 2012 & Environment and Land Case 102 of 2008 (Consolidated)) [2025] KEELC 8230 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Environment and Land Court refused to re-open a concluded land case, ruling that parties cannot fix weak evidence after closing their case.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Re-opening of a closed case to admit additional evidence
The application failed; the Petitioner did not demonstrate sufficient grounds
The record showed the same advocate who closed the Petitioner's case now seeks to re-open it, without substantiation of the alleged lack of instructions. The documents sought (letters of 1995, 1998, 2000, 2016 and 2019) long pre-dated the hearing and pre-dated the filing of the suits, and no diligence-based explanation was given. Re-opening at this advanced stage, after closure of all cases and awaiting submissions, would prejudice the Respondents and prolong litigation unnecessarily.
Stay of proceedings pending determination of a related petition
Stay refused; the plea also failed
Stay of proceedings is discretionary under the court's inherent jurisdiction. The Petitioner produced only a CTS extract revealing nothing about the substance of Petition No. 15 of 2021 - no pleadings, affidavits, draft orders or description of issues. The court had always been aware of the 2012 judgment relied on. The application was raised four years after the other petition was filed, at an extremely advanced stage, without explanation, and was therefore procedurally improper and grossly prejudicial.
Source of the court's power to re-open a case
The statutory recall provisions do not specifically address re-opening; the power is exercised under Section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act as an inherent discretionary power to be exercised judiciously
Section 146(4) of the Evidence Act and Order 18 Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Rules permit recall of witnesses but do not specifically address re-opening of cases to call additional witnesses. The power therefore rests on the inherent jurisdiction under Section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act, to be exercised judicially and on legal principles rather than caprice, in pursuit of real and substantial justice.
Legal principles established
#- The power to re-open a case is discretionary and must be exercised judiciously, guided by the principles that the re-opening must not prejudice the opposite party, must not fill evidentiary gaps, must not be marked by inordinate unexplained delay, and the evidence must be credible and capable of influencing the result
- A party may not use a re-opening application to remedy evidentiary gaps after closing its case
- A stay of proceedings is a grave interruption in a party's right to litigate and should only be imposed where the proceedings clearly ought not continue
- The principle that mistakes of counsel should not be visited on the client must be anchored in evidence, not bare assertions
Court orders
#- 1.The application dated 24th September 2025 is dismissed
- 2.Costs of the application awarded to the Respondents
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Articles 50(1) and 159(2)(d) of the Constitution, Sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 51(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "St. Benjamin Memorial Clinic Supplies Limited v Attorney General & 6 others; Chege & 6 others (Plaintiff); Commissioner of Lands & 4 others (Defendant); Abdul Waheed Sheikh a nd Abdul Hameed Sheikh as Trustees of the Sheikh Fazal Ilachi Noordin Charitable Trust (Interested Party) (Environment and Land Petition 824 of 2012 & Environment and Land Case 102 of 2008 (Consolidated)) [2025] KEELC 8230 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Petition No. 824 of 2012 (consolidated with ELC No. 102 of 2008). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/8230/eng@2025-11-27
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.